He says that the West should adopt a value-based realist approach and reform the multilateral institutions like the UN to preserve the liberal value-based world order.The multipolar world order that seems to be emerging, he says, will lead to conflict and chaos.https://archive.is/K3twi
>>522738704>before it's too lateWhat did he mean by this?What's the deadline that prevents it?
>>522739285He says that the multipolar (instead of multilateral) would lead to chaos. Summary:The West must preserve the liberal rules-based post-Cold War world order.>The aim of values-based realism is to find a balance between values and interests in a way that prioritizes principles but recognizes the limits of a state’s power when the interests of peace, stability, and security are at stake.The world should adopt a "value-based realist" approach.>A rules-based world order underpinned by a set of well-functioning international institutions that enshrine fundamental values remains the best way to prevent competition leading to collision.The emerging multipolar world order, he says, will lead to chaos and conflict as opposed to the liberal rules-based world order.>in a second scenario, the foundations of the liberal international order—its rules and institutions—would continue to erode, and the existing order would collapse. The world would move closer to chaos without a clear nexus of power and with states unable to solve acute crises, such as famines, pandemics, or conflicts. Strongmen, warlords, and nonstate actors would fill power vacuums left behind by receding international organizations. Local conflicts would risk triggering wider wars. Stability and predictability would be the exception, not the norm, in a dog-eat-dog world. Peace mediation would be close to impossible.To prevent this, the multilateral institutions like the UN and WTO need to be reformed.>A set of postwar institutions helped steer the world through its most rapid era of development and sustained an extraordinary period of relative peace. Today, they are at risk of collapsing. But they must survive, because a world based on competition without cooperation will lead to conflict. To survive, however, they must change, because too many states lack agency in the existing system and, in the absence of change, will divest themselves from it.
nobody cares about liberal world gobbledygook niggerfugazi
>>522739500>A rules-based world order underpinned by a set of well-functioning international institutions that enshrine fundamental values remains the best way to prevent competition leading to collision. You're making turdie bots cry.
>>522738704He is actually a conservative, right-leaning person who even said something positive about Vance's anti-EU speech. Ill read it
>>522738704> The liberal, rules-based order that arose after the end of World War II is now dying.What's interesting is that I'm not really convinced that it's true. Even Russians justify their invasion with a reference to international law (Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations in exercise of the right of self-defence)> In choosing either to strengthen the multilateral system or seek multipolarity, the global South will decide whether geopolitics in the next era leans toward cooperation, fragmentation, or domination.So far, the way the West kept most of the "global south" on the "international law" team is by bribing them with white taxpayer money. With all sorts of preferences in trade, "climate" shit, with anti-racism and open migration. With decolonisation and demilitarisation, with military restraint and tight rules of engagement. With preferential loans and foreign aid. At the end of the day, the West just runs out of money.> This is the last chance for Western countries to convince the rest of the world that they are capable of dialogue rather than monologueOk, how, lets see.
>>522739836He argues that the UN needs to be reformed in the following ways:1. The UN Security Council should increase permanent members by 5: 2 from Africa, 2 from Asia, and 1 from Latin America, ensuring all major continents are represented2. No single state should have veto power in the Security Council, as it cripples its effectiveness, unlike UN agencies in Geneva where no veto exists3. If a permanent or rotating Security Council member violates the UN Charter, its UN membership should be suspended by the General Assembly, ensuring no double standards, e.g., Russia would be suspended after its invasion of UkraineIs all this too utopian?
>>522738704Nothing matters as long as technology continues to improve. Conflict heats the iron hotter and we can forge stronger steel with it.
>>522740530> the last chance for Western countries to convince the rest of the world that they are capable of dialogue rather than monologue, consistency rather than double standards, and cooperation rather than dominationIt's fucking hilarious to read. The West cucks to the global south since decolonisation and "the wind of change" speech, since Kennedy. That's such a leftist framing, because leftists always said the West is le bad because the West didn't give the global south enough gibs.> The key is to try to maximize influence and, with the tools available, push for solutions> They need to be updated and reformed to better reflect the growing economic and political power of the global South and the global EastOk, so the apparent "solution" is to suck the global South harder. Not to develop industry, military, get a seat at the table. Just suck more. It's not really "using agency", it's some battered wife syndrome.
>>522738704Why though i hate liberalism?
>>522739500>The aim of values-based realism is to find a balance between values and interests in a way that prioritizes principles but recognizes the limits of a state’s power when the interests of peace, stability, and security are at stake.So they want digital id, but they can't do it anymore.>A rules-based world order underpinned by a set of well-functioning international institutions that enshrine fundamental values remains the best way to prevent competition leading to collision.They always hated having competition, competition bad, no break away pls!>in a second scenario, the foundations of the liberal international order—its rules and institutions—would continue to erode, and the existing order would collapse. The world would move closer to chaos without a clear nexus of power and with states unable to solve acute crises, such as famines, pandemics, or conflicts. Strongmen, warlords, and nonstate actors would fill power vacuums left behind by receding international organizations. Local conflicts would risk triggering wider wars. Stability and predictability would be the exception, not the norm, in a dog-eat-dog world. Peace mediation would be close to impossible.So they cannot engineer famines, pandemics and conflicts because not everybody is going to follow them. Power vacuums caused by no functioning central banks which can print paper currency. Wider wars are going to appear, the pet niggers might get killed!>A set of postwar institutions helped steer the world through its most rapid era of development and sustained an extraordinary period of relative peace. Today, they are at risk of collapsing. But they must survive, because a world based on competition without cooperation will lead to conflict. To survive... because too many states lack agency in the existing system and, in the absence of change, will divest themselves from it.If some leave, other might leave too after they see how better off they are after leaving. Can't have that!
>>522740963Literally just invade and kill everyone in the 3rd world.Then the West will have all the resources it needs.Fuck human rights we need to put our race first
>>522741021Then get ready to go to war, you little faggot. Because that’s what every multipolar global order leads to.
>>522738704Can any Finnbros tell me if his reading of Finnish history and national opinions is accurate? He seems like a faggot.
>>522741389Just use nukes and chemical weapons we should become barbarians make them fear us.Your humanist thinking is weakness
> The political scientist Francis Fukuyama called that moment “the end of history,” and I wasn’t the only one to believe that the triumph of liberalism was certain.> Most nation-states would invariably pivot toward democracy, market capitalism, and freedomHe talks about the USSR. But no less important was the fall of South Africa, Rhodesia, and Portuguese colonies a few years earlier. It's not just democracy + capitalism, anti-racism and feminism is just as important part of an "end of history" package> The global financial crash of 2008 delivered a severe reputational blow to the West’s economic model, rooted in global marketsCaused by Bush anti-racist crusade to give blacks and mexicans subprime mortgages> Its commitment to international law was questioned. U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq failedStill, the US worked through the UN, it wasn't just some pure unilateralism like Israel does. Wait a second tho, is he even mentioning Israel? (No)> UN Security Council reaction:> Resolution 1368 (12 Sept 2001) condemned 9/11, called it a threat to international peace and security, and “recognized the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter.” > Resolution 1373 (28 Sept 2001) reaffirmed 1368 and imposed binding counter-terrorism obligations on all states.>>522741333The first step would be to take our own interests, not some international law norms for the sake of norms themselves, but to use them in our interests. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is a good example>>522740589So basically, the Finn wants to bribe global South with more UN seats to disempower Russia. That's really all there is.
>>522738704>He says that the West should adopt a value-based realist approach and reform the multilateral institutions like the UN to preserve the liberal value-based world order.>The multipolar world order that seems to be emerging, he says, will lead to conflict and chaos.That's a whole lot of bullshit that nobody cares about. Just expell non-Whites and take over Africa and some other shitholes, and cull the populations so they can't demographically ruin the Earth any further.
>>522740589None of the great powers wanted to join the UN if they were going to be held to account. The point is to hold others to account, that is why they are permeant members and have a veto
> Multilateralism is a system of global cooperation that rests on international institutions and common rules. Its key principles apply equally to all countries, irrespective of size. Even if it is possible, is it really desirable? Does every African state deserve a voice in global governance?> Multipolarity, by contrast, is an oligopoly of powerBut isn't it the only realistically possible arrangement? "System of global cooperation" exists only as long as the strong countries keep it running and let weaker countries play by these rules. The UN rules weren't established by some form of an international social contract, but by winning a war.
>>522741333That's extremely unrealistic and would almost certainly failHOWEVER
>>522738704
> There is a growing tension between those who promote multilateralism and an order based on the rule of law and those who speak the language of multipolarity and transactionalism. Small states and middle powers, as well as regional organizations such as the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the EU, and the South American bloc Mercosur, promote multilateralism. China, for its part, promotes multipolarity with shades of multilateralism; it ostensibly endorses multilateral groupings such as BRICS—the non-Western coalition whose original members were Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that actually want to give rise to a more multipolar order. The United States has shifted its emphasis from multilateralism toward transactionalism but still has commitments to regional institutions such as NATO.Notice tho that with maybe an exception of the EU, these multilateral institutions achieve nothing and are non-actors at the global stage. It's the US, China, Russia pushing history forward, even just individual EU states like Germany that choose to supply Ukraine with weapons, but the EU as a whole - less so> This, paradoxically, is happening when the world needs multilateralism more than ever to solve common challenges, such as climate change, development shortfalls, and the regulation of advanced technologies. So the deindustrialisation of the West, foreign aid and AI safteyism. That's truly the holy trinity worth fighting for.> A multilateral world makes the common good a self-interest.I don't share the common good with the third world. Again, his plan is to align with Africa against Russia; that's a hard sell.
>>522741389Why, retarded nigger? If some global south vermin chimps out at you just drop a couple nuclear warheads on them and ask the UN "the fuck you going to do about it"?
> They include the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, the prohibition of the use of force, and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Countries have, overwhelmingly, a clear interest in upholding these values and ensuring that violators face real consequences.Do they? The countries chose war so many times that it's not clear whether respecting territorial integrity is such a universal interest. With human rights - even less so. Wishful thinking> I come from a relatively small country with a population of close to six million people. > Power, both the hard and the soft kind, is mostly a luxury of the bigger players.This is such a Nietzschean line> Often, those alliances are based on shared values, such as a commitment to human rights and the rule of law.Often? The only one that matches the description is the EU, and it's hardly an actor.
>>522743029> Countries should strive for a cooperative world order of values-based realism, respecting both the rule of law and cultural and political differences.This sounds nice, but it's a utopian social contract theory applied to international relationships. What if some countries just cant or don't want to cooperate? In reality, there will be a strong country that pushes people in its sphere to the common denominator, but then it's multipolarity he wanted to escape.> The global West and the global East are fighting for the hearts and minds of the global South. The reason is simple: they understand that the global South will decide the direction of the new world order. As the West and the East pull in different directions, the South has the swing vote.Again, it's a bit utopian. Hearts and minds of Africans won't decide the US - Russia - China confrontation, even if they can be helpful.> The global West cannot simply attract the global South by extolling the virtues of freedom and democracy; it also needs to fund development projects, make investments in economic growth, and, most important, give the South a seat at the table and share power.What does the West want to get from this relationship? UN votes against Russia?> The global East would be equally mistaken to think that its spending on big infrastructure projects and direct investment buys it full influence in the global South. Love cannot be easily bought. As Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has noted, India and other countries in the global South are not simply sitting on the fence but rather standing on their own ground.> Love cannot be easily bought.But China and Russia aren't buying love; they are selling their stuff and getting cash they can use. It doesn't need love to be involved for it to work
> Some values are nonnegotiable. These include upholding fundamental and human rights, protecting minorities, preserving democracy, and respecting the rule of law.> protecting minoritiesJust hilarious. Even more hilarious is the fact that the whole shit and the motivation for the text comes from Ukraine not respecting its Russian minority.
Just more delusional drivel. You lost.
> It means collaboration based on partnerships of equals rather than some historical perception of what relations among the global West, East, and South should look like. In a way he is smuggling his own ideological perception about what relations should look like. For some reason, we really need to work on climate change, for example, it's quite a strong preconception.
> If it realizes that the global South will be a key part of the next world orderAgain, he repeats his assumption of some grave importance of global South> A set of postwar institutions helped steer the world through its most rapid era of development and sustained an extraordinary period of relative peace.Really it was only the NATO and the USSR that kept peace (within soviet borders), all other institutions just clapped in the background. > But they must surviveWho must survive exactly? The UN? Is the UN framed as responsible for peace and development?> Things could be worse: in a second scenario, the foundations of the liberal international order—its rules and institutions—would continue to erode, and the existing order would collapse.He paints a dark picture here, but it's more likely that countries will defer to a local hegemon instead of fighting in a battle royale.> The veto was necessary in the aftermath of World War II, but in today’s world it has incapacitated the Security Council.Like I said it's just a way for a finn to disempower Russia.> The veto was necessary in the aftermath of World War II, but in today’s world it has incapacitated the Security Council.Then the strong players will just leave> This would mean that the body would have suspended Russia after its full-scale invasion of UkraineHe just assumes that this is what would've happened. Maybe instead, Russia would've bribed enough countries to suspend Ukraine for oppressing the Russian minority. Such a can of worms of unintended consequences. And when you suspend countries, they just leave, and you are back at your multipolarity you wanted to avoid
His WTO passage is just "I want the WTO to work better"> Tariffs and other infringements of WTO rules end up hurting everyoneAgain, just not necessarily true. Trump breaks WTO rules, uses it as leverage for a better trade deal.> The wildcard for the global West in all of this will be whether the United States wants to preserve the multilateral world order At the end he basically admits this stuff cannot exist without a hegemon> The 1975 convening of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe offers a stark contrast to Yalta. Thirty-two European countries, plus Canada, the Soviet Union, and the United States, met in Helsinki to create a European security structure based on rules and norms applicable to all.Ultimately, the USSR joined not out of some commitment to shared values but to safeguard post-WW II Warsaw Pact borders. So again, under the surface of multilateralism, there's multipolarity.
>>522739285>deadline >"The next five to ten years will likely determine the world order for decades to come. Once an order settles in, it tends to stick for a while. After World War I, a new order lasted two decades. The next order, after World War II, lasted for four decades. Now, 30 years after the end of the Cold War, something new is again emerging."
multipolar order is coming, it cant be stopped. the only state that refuses to see this is europe. America, russia, and china will be the big players, maybe india.Look at trump, he is marking his territory, south america, Venezuela, Greenland, Canada
>>522745363The UN stuff worked mainly because the US was run by Democrats, and Democrats were committed to the UN, giving it hegemonic backing. The EU seem to be the true believers
>>522741480seems pretty accurate to history. he mostly just describes finlandization
>>522738704>Says New Global Order instead of New World OrderHe thinks he is clever trying to change the phrasing around.
